Conversation
|
|
||
|
|
||
| | SEP | | | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The table is not formatting correctly due to this extra line breaks.
There are a bunch of other places below with formatting problems too - please review visually and clean up accordingly.
|
|
||
| ## 2. Specification <a name="specification"></a> | ||
|
|
||
| 2.1. Glyph Definition |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In prior SBOL Visual SEPs, we have always had a draft implementation of the glyph on a branch, in order to ensure that it is fully defined before the vote begins. What does in this section is then all the substantive elements of the diff between that branch and the main:
See, for example, SEP V011 on genomic context:
- SEP: https://github.com/SynBioDex/SBOL-visual/blob/develop/SEPs/SEP_V011.md
- Associated pull request: https://github.com/SynBioDex/SBOL-visual/pull/44/changes
Until this specification is fully defined, we can't really know enough to properly approve.
|
|
||
| - Is visually compact | ||
|
|
||
| - Does not resemble any existing SBOL Visual glyph |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Per the discussion on SEP V003, there is a significant potential for confusion with blunt restriction site. I also see potential for confusion with pairs of stem-only DNA locations.
We can still use this glyph, but we need to be explicit about the potential confusion and our SHOULD recommendations to people in order to mitigate it.
|
|
||
| ## Abstract | ||
|
|
||
| This proposal introduces a new SBOL Visual glyph, represented by the character sequence “//”, to denote generic breaks in DNA. These breaks include regions where sequence continuity is intentionally unspecified, undefined, interrupted, or skipped for schematic clarity. The use of “//” aligns with widespread conventions in biological schematics and provides a simple, intuitive, and compact symbol to improve readability. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this being proposed as an alternative glyph to omitted detail, or as a separate glyph?
- If the former, then it should be proposed as such.
- If the latter, then we need to have a clear distinction made about what differentiates the two.
2 participants
No description provided.